MacNeil v Queensland College of Teachers
[2011] QCAT 260
•2 June 2011
| CITATION: | MacNeil v Queensland College of Teachers [2011] QCAT 260 |
| PARTIES: | Graeme Frederick MacNeil |
| v | |
| Queensland College of Teachers |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | OCR004-09 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Occupational regulation matters |
| HEARING DATE: | 7 February 2011 |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | P J Hanly, Member R Joachim, Member B Day, Member |
| DELIVERED ON: | 2 June 2011 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
ORDERS MADE: | The respondent is prohibited from applying for registration or permission to teach for a period of 5 years from the date of the hearing. |
| CATCHWORDS: | Teacher – fitness to teach – where teacher was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment following his plea of guilty to being an accessory after the fact to murder and two counts of making a false statement – where perpetrator of murder was student of the teacher Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
This matter was heard on the papers in accordance with s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009.
REASONS FOR DECISION
The teacher in these proceedings is Mr Graeme Frederick MacNeil (the respondent).
The disciplinary proceedings against the respondent commenced in 2008 when, on 9 May 2008, the Queensland College of Teachers (the QCT) suspended the respondent’s registration as a teacher following receipt of information from the Queensland Police Service that the respondent had been charged with several serious criminal offences.
On 20 May 2008, after the matter had been referred to it by the QCT, the former Teacher’s Disciplinary Committee (the TDC) issued directions for the further conduct of the matter after the conclusion of the pending criminal proceedings.
On 13 May 2010 the respondent was sentenced in the Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane, following his plea of guilty to being an accessory after the fact to murder and two counts of making a false statement.
In December 2009 the TDC was replaced by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT).
Pursuant to a direction made by QCAT at a Directions Hearing on 17 August 2010, the QCT prepared a draft Statement of Agreed Facts for consideration/acceptance by the respondent. The respondent signed that document on 27 September 2010. It provided as follows:
“It is agreed that:
i)The respondent’s date of birth is 5 January 1964. The respondent is presently aged 46. He was aged 43 when he engaged in the conduct giving rise to these proceedings;
ii)The respondent was first registered to teach in Queensland on 8 January 1985, and has been removed from the register due to non payment of fees;
iii)As a result, the respondent’s status is that of a former approved teacher for the purposes of the Act;
iv)The applicable penalties available to QCAT relating to former approved teachers are set out in s.161 of the Act;
v)At the relevant time, the respondent was employed as a teacher at (a regional) State High School;
vi)The respondent was also an ordained minister with the Cross of Christ Ministry;
vii)On 31 July 2007, the QCT received notification pursuant to s.75 of the Act that the respondent had been charged with the following offences:
· Accessory after the fact to Murder, section 307 Criminal Code (offence date 15 July 2007);
· Misconduct with regard to a corpse, section 236(b) Criminal Code;
· Two offences of making a False Statement (offence dates 18 and 19 July 2007)
viii)Additionally, on 6 May 2008 a further notification was received in relation to a charge of unlawful use of a motor vehicle arising from the same circumstances;
ix)The circumstances of the criminal offending are as set out in the sentencing remarks and submissions annexed to this Statement (Marked as “Annexure A”). A student taught by the respondent murdered his older brother and the respondent provided the student with assistance.
x)The student contacted the respondent following the murder and the respondent thereafter assisted the student in disposing of the body of the deceased brother. The respondent thereafter also provided false statements to police denying his involvement. The involvement of the respondent is briefly summarised at page 3 of the sentencing remarks, at lines 1-12.
xi)By way of a Notice sent to the respondent on 9 May 2008, the QCT suspended the respondent’s registration pursuant to s.49 of the Act;
xii)The matter was then referred to the TDC, and thereafter, to the QCAT;
xiii)On 13 May 2010 the respondent was sentenced following a plea of guilty before Her Honour Justice Philippides in relation to 3 charges (accessory after the fact to murder and 2 offences of making false statements);
xiv)The penalty imposed for the offence of being an accessory to murder was one of 8 years imprisonment with parole recommended after serving 3 years;
xv)Concurrent sentences of 18 months imprisonment were imposed in relation to the other offences of making false statements;
xvi)The QCT and the respondent (via his legal representative) previously prepared and executed a draft consent order on 16 August 2010, indicating no contest as to the penalty sought. That Order was never filed nor otherwise tendered, as the QCAT directed that a statement of agreed facts should first be prepared between the parties;
xvii)As a result of the conduct subject to these proceedings, and for which the respondent has been sentenced in the criminal jurisdiction, the respondent is not suitable to teach pursuant to s.92(1)(h) of the Act, and a ground for disciplinary action exists;
xviii)The appropriate penalty is one of a prohibition upon the respondent applying for registration/permission to teach for a period of 5 years, pursuant to s.161(2)(c) of the Act;
xix)Ultimately, the hearing of this matter can appropriately be one conducted “on the papers”.
Other submissions by QCT as to penalty were as follows:
xx)Pursuant to s.147(a) and (b) of the Act, the College submits that the QCAT should receive and adopt those decisions and findings of the sentencing Court as they are relevant to the disciplinary hearing.
xxi)On any view of the matter, the respondent’s conduct is extremely serious. The gravity of the criminal conduct together with the significant penalty imposed (and the maximum penalty of life imprisonment) indicates that it is at the uppermost end of the scale of seriousness:
xxii)It was noted by the sentencing Court that the respondent was in a position of authority, not only in relation to the principal offender, but within the community more generally by virtue of his position.
xxiii)The participation of the respondent was noted to be absent any compulsion or coercion being exerted upon the respondent to act as he did.
xxiv)The conduct included actively assisting in the disposal of a body, secreting clothing and other items which would be of evidentiary value to police.
xxv)The provision of false statements to police on two occasions was noted to be a deliberate deception.
xxvi)The conduct of the respondent clearly indicates that the respondent is not suitable to work in a child related field. The conduct furthermore obviously does not satisfy a standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher, and in addition represents disgraceful or improper behaviour which shows the respondent to be unfit to be granted registration. (s.12(1)(b) and (3) considerations).
xxvii)The facts and circumstances of this matter are unique, and as such, the applicant submits that no authority exists which can usefully assist the Tribunal. The conduct represents the most grave type of offending, and warrants the imposition of the most significant penalty available, namely a prohibition on registration/permission to teach for a period of 5 years (pursuant to s.161(2)(c) of the Act).”
The determination of a disciplinary matter is an administrative function where the appropriate standard of proof is the reasonable satisfaction of the decision maker with that degree of satisfaction varying according to the gravity of the facts to be proved.[1]
[1] Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 at 361-62.
The respondent’s plea of guilty to these grave charges and his subsequent imprisonment for 8 years are facts to which the Tribunal must give appropriate weight when considering whether he is suitable to teach.[2]
[2] Section 11(2) Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Act).
The respondent agrees that he is not suitable to teach. He further agrees that the appropriate penalty is one of a prohibition upon him of applying for registration/permission to teach for a period of 5 years, pursuant to s161(2)(c) of the Act, given that he is a former approved teacher.
[10] QCT also agrees that the appropriate penalty is a prohibition upon the respondent of applying for registration/permission to teach for a period of 5 years.
[11] The Tribunal accepts the submission of QCT that the conduct of the respondent clearly indicates that he is not suitable to work in a child related field; that his conduct does not satisfy a standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher and his conduct represents disgraceful or improper behaviour which shows him to be unfit to be granted registration.[3]
[3] Act, s 12(1)(b) & (3).
[12] Her Honour Justice Philippides, when sentencing the respondent, described as “simply incomprehensible”[4] the assistance he had given to the boy who had committed the murder. Her Honour stated that she could well understand that the family of the deceased continue to struggle with the respondent’s “inexplicable conduct”.[5]
[4] Page 1-9 line 2 Sentencing remarks Philippides J.
[5] Page 1-9 line 1 ibid.
[13] In imposing the head sentence of eight years’ imprisonment, Her Honour noted that the sentence reflected the gravity of the offence, and the need to impose a strong deterrent sentence “reflecting the condemnation that is appropriate for (the respondent’s) assistance, and also the aggravating features, not only in terms of the assistance … rendered, but also the failure to disclose (the respondent’s) knowledge and involvement, and the nature of the status that (the respondent) held”.[6]
[6] Page 1-9 lines 19-29 ibid.
[14] The maximum period for which the Tribunal can prohibit the respondent from applying for registration/permission to teach is 5 years. The Tribunal is therefore constrained by the legislation in imposing a penalty on this respondent. The Tribunal regards the respondent’s behaviour in this matter as so grave, that were a longer period of prohibition available to it, then such longer period would have been applied by the Tribunal.
[15] It follows therefore that under the legislation as it stands, the Tribunal is satisfied that the maximum period of prohibition should be applied.
0
2
0